no; used as in what we do with it.
— Banno
Exactly. What you do with words is use them to refer to (communicate) the non-verbal contents of your mind. — Harry Hindu
So we use words to "refer to (communicate)" the non-words in our minds? :chin: — Pattern-chaser
Before using words, you have to think of what it is you want to say, and it doesn't always come in the form of other words, rather it comes in non-verbal sensory impressions that we translate to words in order to communicate those ideas to another person. — Harry Hindu
We can go a step further. I keep seeing "Hairy" instead of "Harry", and as a result my image of Harry Hindu is sometimes like this: — Banno
I would not exclude the fourth possibility that you all just suck at it :joke: .Is it that despite the Socratic method being around for more than 2000years, no-one (except you) has thought to apply it to the meanings of words, or is it that they have but the process simply takes more than 2000 years to resolve (in which case I don't have much hope for the technique helping much on this forum), or is it, just possibly, that it doesn't work? — Pseudonym
Why make a distinction between meaning an philosophical meaning? What I'm doing is defining meaning in a way that makes sense in all manners that we use the word, "meaning". There shouldn't be any inconsistencies - just integration.You seem to be missing out an entire, crucially important stage and that's what I'm trying to ask you about (and I think that's what Banno's trying to get at too).
Your process seems to go like this;
1. You have a sensation/thought in your mind which you convert to a sign (word) which somehow represents that sensation/thought.
2. You say that word or write it and I hear it or read it.
3. I then try to convert that word into a sensation or thought hopefully close to the one you had.
This seems to me to encapsulate entirely what you're saying about communication, and I don't think anyone's disagreeing with you. But none of that is what the philosophical discussion of meaning is about. Philosophical discussions of meaning are about how you know what words are good ones to use to represent your sensation/thought. You don't just pick some random word, so how do you know which one to pick? That is the meaning of the word, its the reason you chose it to represent the sensation/thought you wanted to communicate. Why choose 'tree'? Because it somehow is already the sound that is most likely to get the same image into my mind that you have in yours (that of a tree). So if meaning is whatever you intend, then what is that thing which is clearly a property of the word 'tree' which led you to choose it to do that job? — Pseudonym
So we use words to "refer to (communicate)" the non-words in our minds? :chin: — Pattern-chaser
Perhaps. But I think you're not. I commented because you claimed the words were the effect. Now you agree that they aren't (?), so I'm not sure what your argument or point is. Let's see if we can drill to the core of this sub-topic.
You appear to assert that meaning is the relationship between cause and effect.
Have I understood your position correctly?
Is this offered as a definition of meaning, or an illustrative example of what meaning is? — Pattern-chaser
Banno, and what is your mental image of me if not a representation of the real me? Would you be talking about me if you never met me? The only way you know me is through your mental representations of me, which I have to say, are very limited especially via an internet forum.Let's look at one of his claims directly: Harry says that when I talk of "Harry Hindu", what I am refering to is the Harry Hindu in my mind.
But that's not right. The notion of Harry Hindu in my mind does not write posts in the philosophy forum. It's some sort of mental object, and so does not have hands with which to write.
Now, Harry Hindu, being a person, can write posts on PF. It follows that what I refer to when I use the name "Harry Hindu" is Harry Hindu, and not My-mental-image-of-Harry-Hindu.
Harry will claim that this is some how an unfair account; he is in the thrall of a false picture of how language works, as something that exists in his head instead of something that is constructed by all of us together as we use it. — Banno
Exactly, which is what you are implying, not me. Your mental image can be wrong, BECAUSE it is a predicted representation. You are wrong, and your language use represents that (your inaccurate mental representation of me). In other words, you are using words to refer to your representation of me, which can be wrong or right. So, your word use isn't wrong, just your representation of me is, which is an effect itself - an effect of your limited interactions with me and your own biases, and therefore has an effect on the words you use to describe me.We can go a step further. I keep seeing "Hairy" instead of "Harry", and as a result my image of Harry Hindu is sometimes like this:
portrait-of-an-indian-saddhu-at-a-temple-in-udaipur-rajasthan-c2ae0c.jpg
Somehow I think it not quite accurate.
But if the meaning of "Harry Hindu" is my mental image, and not the actual Harry, then I can't be wrong. — Banno
We choose certain words because those are the strings of symbols that we learned to refer to anything. — Harry Hindu
Instead, we always try to get at the intent of the user of those words. — Harry Hindu
If we could project our meanings, then how do we get anything wrong? — Harry Hindu
If the word had a meaning before the author writes it, then it's meaning cannot just be whatever the author intends. There is some property of the word 'tree' which already exists prior the the author's selecting it, which make it good choice for him to convey the idea of the tall plant in the woods. — Pseudonym
The question of meaning is not about how a word comes to mean what it does within the language community, its about what it means already within that community, and we've just established, it must mean something already before the author uses it, in order for him to make a non-arbitrary selection. — Pseudonym
No, we don't. If an author uses the word 'tree', I assume he means either the tall plant, or maybe some multi-branching diagram. — Pseudonym
The meaning of a word is its use in the language game. It's determined by the interaction of both players and the millions of language speakers who have gone before them, and the nature of the language game being played. — Pseudonym
It can't be difficult to agree that this is a two-way street. Linguistic communities create the general game. And individual players make creative use of the resulting space of free actions. Eventually new linguistic habits can emerge from those creative uses because they seem generally useful at the communal level (rather than just tentatively useful at the personal creative level on some occasion or other).
So any argument that tries to establish that only one side of the deal is in control - the community or the author - is a waste of breath. The interesting question is about characterising the dynamic in play. (Which is where a systems style constraints approach makes the most sense.) — apokrisis
Yep. So you are forcing the synchronic, history-flattening, view on the issue when the diachronic, or developmental, view is the one that is going to see the whole deal.
Actual human experience of society and culture tells us that games evolve their rules all the time. They are always fiddling with the rules of rugby, Wall St, or the highway code. — apokrisis
Talk of trees, and their treeness, isn't arbitrary. It is talk about some deep fact of the world - a fact about how the world plays its "games" of structuring form. The universe has actual "rules" - or rather, its universal forms, its simplest possible and so most widely observed constraints on random variety. — apokrisis
You appear to assert that meaning is the relationship between cause and effect.
Have I understood your position correctly?
Is this offered as a definition of meaning, or an illustrative example of what meaning is? — Pattern-chaser
It is the definition of meaning. — Harry Hindu
We keep using the word 'tree', but it's actually a terrible example considering the point of the OP which is to imply that some progress could be made in philosophical discourse if words were defined first. — Pseudonym
The word 'tree' actually seems to derives from the root 'deru' which means strong and steadfast. So It was originally trying to get at the tree's firm and unyielding nature, not it's multi-branching form. — Pseudonym
All we can say is that all future uses of the word 'tree' will be somehow constrained by our preference for pattern over randomness. — Pseudonym
I'd be surprised if there weren't terms even back then to distinguish trees - as tall plants branching off from a single trunk - from shrubs. — apokrisis
We can only agree a meaning to the extent we agree to ignore the endless possible differences of nature, of the real world. Word use corresponds not to things in themselves but to where we agree to stop debating the open-ended differences that will always remain. — apokrisis
If words had meaning prior to any author using them, then where did words come from if they existed prior to humans? Who, or what assigned each word it's meaning in every language that ever existed or will exist? The fact that there are different languages itself is proof that language use is arbitrary. The symbols (sounds and scribbles) we use are arbitrary but the things that they refer to aren't. Your native language is just the system you've adopted as your means of communicating your non-verbal ideas. Using that system with a user of a different system causes problems. Both users have non-verbal ideas but can't share them externally without using a shared system - a protocol as the term is used in computer science.Right, so the word already had a meaning before the author writes it. It has to, otherwise the author would have no reason to select it. If the word had a meaning before the author writes it, then it's meaning cannot just be whatever the author intends. There is some property of the word 'tree' which already exists prior the the author's selecting it, which make it good choice for him to convey the idea of the tall plant in the woods.
The question of meaning is not about how a word comes to mean what it does within the language community, its about what it means already within that community, and we've just established, it must mean something already before the author uses it, in order for him to make a non-arbitrary selection. So your contention that the meaning of a word is whatever the speaker has in mind when they employ it, is simply wrong. — Pseudonym
This is forgetting that "established uses" of words are very different across the human species and change frequently within a language system (new words arise and existing words are re-vamped).No, we don't. If an author uses the word 'tree', I assume he means either the tall plant, or maybe some multi-branching diagram. I make absolutely no investigation of what the author intended beyond selecting from the established uses of the word in context. I don't ask them to elaborate unless I'm confused, I don't look to some published glossary of their personal meanings. I expect it to mean one of the things it already means within the language game I'm playing. So again, the meaning of the word already exists and the author must necessarily adhere to the rules of the language game or else he will not be understood. — Pseudonym
What I've been saying is your explanation leaves no room for artistic and metaphorical variety and inventiveness that exists and needs to be addressed in any good explanation of language and meaning.I've never suggested that we get to project our meanings any more than the author gets to project theirs. The meaning of a word is its use in the language game. It's determined by the interaction of both players and the millions of language speakers who have gone before them, and the nature of the language game being played. — Pseudonym
Your mental image can be wrong, BECAUSE it is a predicted representation. — Harry Hindu
Your theory of meaning is that the name "Harry Hindu" refers to my mental image of you. — Banno
One more time.
Your theory of meaning is that the name "Harry Hindu" refers to my mental image of you.
But you agree, from what you said above, that my mental image of you is not you.
That is, you distinguish between my mental image of Harry Hindu and Harry Hindu.
And it follows, quite directly, that my mental image of Harry Hindu, and Harry Hindu, are not the very same thing.
And hence, The referent of Harry Hindu is not my mental image of Harry Hindu.
And again: In order to formulate the expression "Your mental image of Harry Hindu can be wrong, BECAUSE it is a predicted representation of Harry Hindu", you must differentiate between my mental image of Harry and Harry himself.
And in so doing, you show that "Harry" refers to Harry, and not to a mental image. — Banno
What shall "actual Harry Hindu" mean? The actual mental image?All you have to do is go back an re-read my post to see that your reply is pointless. As I stated before, your words do refer to your mental image because your words are an inaccurate description of the actual "Harry Hindu" — Harry Hindu
You mean to say "the fact that no one could find the essence of 'belief' in this forum". That it doesn't work is precisely what we are disputing here. At worst, even if the perfect definitions are not always found, the method allows to get very close to it; thereby making it worthwhile to use.How is the fact that it evidently doesn't work, despite 2000 years of trial, not an inherent flaw. If someone gave me a new phone and it didn't function, I wouldn't expect to have to find the exact diode that had failed before being entitled to conclude that the phone didn't work. — Pseudonym
Claiming that others have an argument is not a substitute to come up with an argument of your own. Maybe they do have compelling arguments, but you would not know it if you cannot say what it is. If you and I are going to have a long term discussion, I expect you to philosophize, and not merely point to other philosophers.If you want an account of those flaws, you could read Wittgenstein, Nietzsche, even Heidegger(if you must), or any of the many ordinary language philosophers, existentialists, quietists, pragmatists, all of whom in various ways have found flaws in the process. — Pseudonym
Why not? In our previous discussion here, my position was the exact opposite, that, unlikely you, I believe we can come to an agreement.The point is that you personally would not find their arguments compelling. [...] — Pseudonym
your mental image of me and the actual me are not the same thing, — Harry Hindu
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.